originally posted by: Agit8dChop
2. Future Democratic nominations - You now only need an accusation with 0 evidence to grind the political system to a halt.

Except the Democrats will have sense enough to prevent such a thing. Something the Republicans failed to do, while they were bending over backwards to
accommodate the Democrats, thinking it would make them look fair and be reciprocated.

I'm not sure why the MSM kept commenting that Rachel Mitchell wasnt really effective. I think she did a fine job at getting Christine Ford to relax
just enough to poke holes in her story. Of course, you'd have to actually be paying attention to spot them......

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
2. Future Democratic nominations - You now only need an accusation with 0 evidence to grind the political system to a halt.

Except the Democrats will have sense enough to prevent such a thing. Something the Republicans failed to do, while they were bending over backwards to
accommodate the Democrats, thinking it would make them look fair and be reciprocated.

JULY 6: Christine Ford sends a letter to Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) alleging that she was sexually assaulted in high school by Brett Kavanaugh,
a leading contender to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by Justice Anthony Kennedy. Ford also sends a text about the incident to the Washington
Post. The assault allegedly took place in the early 1980s, when Ford was 15 and Kavanaugh was 17.

JULY 6 to JULY 8: Christine Ford tells 'beach friends' in California for the first time that she was assaulted by Kavanaugh and asks for advice
on whether to go public.

JULY 9: President Donald Trump nominates Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. After the announcement, a staffer in Rep. Eshoo's office calls Ford to
discuss her allegations against Kavanaugh.

JULY 10: Ford contacts the Washington Post for the second time, and gets a response. She starts having conversations with a reporter at the
paper off the record via WhatsApp. The app is encrypted, meaning its contents cannot be access by a third party. To use it, Ford's phone number would
be known to the Washington Post.

JULY 18: Ford meets with Rep. Eshoo's staff.

JULY 20: Ford meets with Rep. Eshoo and discusses her fears about going public with the allegations. Ford is assured that the issue will be
kept confidential. Rep. Eshoo suggests sending a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee which
will vote on Kavanaugh's nomination.

JULY 30: Rep. Eshoo hand-delivers Ford's letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's office, including a request from Ford that the letter be kept
confidential.

JULY 30-AUG 7: Ford interviews a number of attorneys and hires a lawyer during this period of time. Feinstein's office recommends some
potential attorneys to Ford. The one she hires - Debra Katz, of Katz, Marshall & Banks - was one of Feinstein's recommendations.

EARLY AUGUST: Kavanaugh has private meetings with Republican Senators to discuss his nomination.

AUG. 7: Ford and Sen. Feinstein discuss her allegations over the phone. Ford also takes and passes a privately-administered polygraph test that
was arranged by her lawyer.

AUG. 30: Feinstein writes to Ford promising that she will not share her letter without Ford's consent.

SEPT. 2: Kavanaugh's first public confirmation hearing is held by the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is widely expected to be confirmed at a
vote scheduled for Sept. 17.

SEPT. 12: The Intercept reports that Feinstein's office has refused to show other Democratic Senators a letter that describes an incident
between Kavanaugh and a girl when they were in high school.

SEPT. 12: Feinstein turns over a redacted version of the letter to the FBI. The FBI adds the letter to Kavanaugh's background check file,
making it accessible to all Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

SEPT. 13: Feinstein releases a statement saying: 'I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh
to the Supreme Court. That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored
that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.'

SEPT. 16: Ford gives an on-the-record interview to the Washington Post. She says she was pressured to go public after 'multiple reporters'
showed up at her home and workplace. She did not say when they were there or what outlets they were from.

So Rep. Eshoo D-CA was first contact for Ford and Ford gave her the letter.
Rep Eshoo hand delivers letter to Feinstein.
As Democrats learned of the letter, requests were made to Feinstein by Dems to review the letter - Feinstein refused the requests.
The reporter who broke the story (the intercept) has gone on record saying FDesinstein nor her staff was the leak. Focus shifts back to Eshoo who was
irritated at Feinstein for sitting on the letter.

It is being reported by an unnamed source in Feinsteins office (so take the info as you want until confirmed) that Feinsteins office paid the retainer
fees for Ford's lawyers and also paid for the polygraph test.

As you watch the video below, just remember that, contrary to her little-girl voice and demeanor, Christine Blasey Ford:

Is a 52-year-old (she’ll be 53 in November), middle-aged professional woman.
Has not one, but three, degrees in psychology, which means she is knowledgeable about polygraph tests and emotional manipulation:
B.A., Psychology, U. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1988.
M.A., Clinical Psychology, Pepperdine University, 1991.
Ph.D., Educational Psychology & Research Design, U. of Southern California, 1996. Is a professor of both teaching and research, which means she is experienced in public speaking and public appearances.

Following this case and seeing the videos ^^^^that^^^^ is what kept screaming

out at me...... that child like voice!! I would have little faith in any adult

professional who behaved in that way....... she has lost all credibility.

Grassley's warning was probably in response to Feinstein's letter to the FBI.

She is trying to get the FBI to keep her in the loop on the investigation and who they are interviewing. That is none of her business. She probably
wants to make sure they are not investigating her or the others involved in the scam. link

This is the most obscene moment in American societal history, when the entire Democrat controlled MSM and Democrat party has purposely
subverted the foundation of America: the rule of law, and replaced it with mob rule where any target can be politically assassinated on a false
accusation.

After a careful review of all of the evidence put fourth by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford in her accusations of sexual assault against Supreme Court
nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell has released a report which completely exonerates the judge.

Sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, a non-partisan third-party with more than 25 years’ experience prosecuting sex crimes in the state of
Arizona, carefully reviewed the allegations made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, including hours of testimony, and has released a report on the matter.
In the report, Mitchell points out more than a dozen glaring inconsistencies in Dr. Ford’s account and paints the accusations as potentially
fraudulent.

Mitchell’s points out several points, including:

click link for entire article...

Well she was thorough in her review of the situation. Frankly Ford and Democrats need to be investigated for this bs stunt.

Larger images for those who use the braille system.

The most damning part according to the report / article -

In perhaps her most damning finding, Rachel Mitchell writes that “The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorney’s likely
affected her account”. Mitchell ostensibly alleges that the maneuvering of congressional Democrats, and the actions of her attorneys, who acted more
like handlers, influenced her account of events, and perhaps even her truthfulness. This may have come out as Mitchell’s lines of questioning were
repeatedly interrupted by her attorneys, namely Michael Bromwich, who also represents Andrew McCabe.

Touching on the Yale accuser. During his background investigations over the years it was disclosed the FBI did speak to people who were at Yale with
him. The 2nd accusers claims could not be corroborated either. Nothing popped at Yale from the previous FBI background investigations relating to
Kavanaugh.

Now, as for Ford and her situation / testimony and influence by Democrats. That is actually a crime to tamper with a victim / witness. Even though
state charges wont apply Federal charges for the same thing can occur because she was a sworn witness in an official congressional hearing. The other
possibility that was raised is she was manipulated by Democrats. During her testimony she was asked several questions, like for instance if she knew
the committee had offered to travel to California to interview her. She stated she was not aware of that offer. If she is telling the truth it is
possible she was walled off from society to ensure Democrats could control the narrative. I dont think Democrats thought this would go as far as it
did and were caught unprepared, again blowing up in their faces.

She needs to undergo a mental health examination to see if she was manipulated.

Secondly the 5 gofundme pages need to be investigated to determine who donated. This looks like a way to pay off people who come forward to make false
allegations. Her house is worth about 3.2 million dollars and the 2 lawyers said they were representing her pro bono. She doesnt know who paid for the
polygraph test either.

Grassley has already sent a criminal referral to the DOJ regarding the 3rd accuser regarding the boat in Rhode Island. That referral will ensnare Sen.
Whitehouse who was caught trying to peddle the story to the media. When the reporter called him out one of his aides contacted the reporter to
essentially beg him not to disclose the incident. He expressed concern it would look like Democrats were behind a coordinated effort.

The irony...

Now, the good news is Democrats have dug the hole so deep they are close to breaking thru into China. A country whose policies and government actions
are more in line with Democrats plan.

ETA - 1 final note regarding statute of limitations in Maryland and the law in general
When a crime occurs the laws on the books at that time are whats required to be used. In this case the 2 laws on the books (36 years ago) at the time
that would apply were misdemeanors and not felony. That means there was a 1 year statute of limitations for prosecution. There is absolutely no
possibility to criminal charges. The police agency and prosecutor for the county in Maryland received a criminal investigation request from Democrats.
They received a letter back declining, specifically citing statute of limitations.

In addition to crimes the statute of limitations at the time are whats used and not current law. In addition court sentencing / punishments are
required to follow the law at the time. This is why some murder cases today that occurred decades ago are not eligible for the death penalty. At the
time the homicide occurred is when the Supreme Court struck down all death penalty convictions.

Was reading about this too.

Pretty good breakdown by a very highly respected person.

I am pretty sure we will start seeing more and more hit the net about Blasey Ford starting today....and it isnt going to be anything good for anyone
involved on her side or the senate dems.

originally posted by: vor78
You'll see just how long this 'but we must believe her!' act of the Democrats will last when they start calling Mitchell a partisan hack. You know
its coming, I know its coming.

Oh...the partisan hack stuff is a given. Cant wait to see what angle they try to say the same thing without saying the same thing....LOL.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.